Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#111

Post by saryant » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:23 PM UTC

Aelinsaar wrote: post #86

mangeletti wrote: post #74

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to h…

You have to love this, especially as it comes from the same people who think that government interfering with their firearms is the end of society. Meanwhile, losing their ability to keep a secret from the government they think they're getting ready to revolt against doesn't faze them. grips forehead and moans

Err, it's Feinstein, who represents California, that's introducing this legislation.

Republican representatives have been pushing back against these bills. Representatives Amash, Issa, Labrador. Senator Paul.

Last weekend I was at the Colorado GOP state convention and I spoke in-person to Colorado's leading GOP senate nominee and he spoke at length of our need to block this sort of legislation. In addition, I spoke with State Sen. Tim Neville, who was the party favorite for the Senate nomination, and he spoke very highly of the efforts of Amash and Paul.

Of course, they're joined by Democrats like Lofgren and Wyden and Independents like Sen. King.

The GOP is not a homogenous group.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#112

Post by studentrob » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:25 PM UTC

mangeletti wrote: post #103

studentrob wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, agree to disagree. I don't think our elected officials are bumbling idiots. But they aren't informed about everything either. It's impossible to be an expert across all fields. As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law. We'd do well to take a step back and observe our thought process. We often think things about computers…

We love to think these people are much like our clients who don't know the difference between a popup window and a Python program. These people are informed by groups like the DIA, CIA, NSA, and every other TLA, with a wealth of information on these issues.

Lindsey Graham changed his mind [1]. It isn't a massive conspiracy. I wouldn't say Feinstein is well-informed. Watch some of the hearings where she interacts with other members. It's awkward and clear they don't enjoy working with her.

[1] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=6m53s

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#113

Post by tptacek » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:26 PM UTC

I'm getting pretty deep into bets on Twitter AGAINST this bill having a chance of passing. My logic is simple: this bill outlaws all sorts of things huge corporations use to protect their networks. No big company I've ever done security work for has ever been OK with crypto keys being escrowed by vendors; in fact, we were often instructed to look for exactly those kinds of features as disqualifiers for products.

I do not believe this Congress will succeed in passing a bill that would require Bank of America to escrow keys with IBM and Symantec.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#114

Post by justinlardinois » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:26 PM UTC

ocschwar wrote: post #94

justinlardinois wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Californian, because... * There are a lot of Republican voters in California who are happy to vote for Democrats, so even better if they're more towards the right * I'm not old enough to have voted in too many elections, but her opponent in 2012 was a joke * She doesn't really have an anti-Silicon Valley reputation (yet) * California is more than just Silicon Valley * Likelihood of voting correlates directly wit…

yet? She was singing this tune 20 years ago.

I don't know about her voting record to know if that's true or not, but again, I'm talking about her reputation, which is partially shaped by fact but also shaped by public perception. And she's not really perceived as anti-tech.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#115

Post by NoGravitas » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

saryant wrote: post #111

Aelinsaar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to love this, especially as it comes from the same people who think that government interfering with their firearms is the end of society. Meanwhile, losing their ability to keep a secret from the government they think they're getting ready to revolt against doesn't faze them. grips forehead and moans

Err, it's Feinstein, who represents California , that's introducing this legislation. Republican representatives have been pushing back against these bills. Representatives Amash, Issa, Labrador. Senator Paul. Last weekend I was at the Colorado GOP state convention and I spoke in-person to Colorado's leading GOP senate nominee and he spoke at length of our need to block this sort of legislation. In addition, I spoke…

It's really the establishment within both the Democratic and Republican parties that is pushing for this. It's opposed by more left-leaning Democrats and more libertarian-leaning Republicans.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#116

Post by abfan1127 » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

chx wrote: post #96

ythl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

When guns are outlawed, only lawmen and outlaws will have guns. Good. That's the state of affairs in every developed country except one and it's demonstrably better in every way.

except for all of these demonstrable ways: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/...

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#117

Post by jmedwards » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

mangeletti wrote: post #74

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to h…

> this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other.

Is that you, Bush Jnr?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#118

Post by jmedwards » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

mangeletti wrote: post #74

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to h…

> this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other.

Is that you, Bush Jnr?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#119

Post by andrewmutz » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:29 PM UTC

I genuinely don't understand what the bill would do. This section seems to place no restrictions on the design of devices:

(b) DESIGN LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.

If the bill says the government cannot place restrictions on the design of devices, but the bill says providers have to do things they can't do with existing designs (e.g. Whatsapp end to end crypto) what does this bill actually do?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#120

Post by hellbanner » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

This is requiring tech companies to provide decrypted data, yes.

I want a private key that is only creatable by N separate individuals, who will only release their part of the key when they can ascertain I am not under coercion. Is there a system that does this?